oops, i meant these two

a book

another book

Are we assuming the bible is a work of fiction here?

Dylan wrote:Are we assuming the bible is a work of fiction here?

Despite the pejorative connotations of the word "fiction", the biblical texts are works of fiction (as opposed to being works of history/reportage).

They are historically-based allegories (and other creative works) committed to text by literary figures of the first rank. A person does not write/edit stories the way that they wrote/edited stories and use the tools/tricks that they used unless that person is intent on storyin' or capturing meaning that lies far beyond fact.

Questions? Let's ask Maimonides!

Good old Rambam!


What about the story with the yacht with all the animals on it? That was fun.

They don't call it the good book without reason.

If only the rest of the world saw it as fiction, too.
I'm surprised how difficult it's been for people to separate the book from the results of the book. I've found it easier and easier over the years as I've begun to make my own understanding of the human condition and realize that your own beliefs have little or nothing to do with the beliefs of the person one cubicle over. I mean, we've all met good people/assholes of every type, right?


Faiz

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

Dylan wrote:Are we assuming the bible is a work of fiction here?

Despite the pejorative connotations of the word "fiction", the biblical texts are works of fiction (as opposed to being works of history/reportage).

Brad, I ask you: what is pejorative about the word "fiction" in a discussion about the literary merits of the bible? I was asking to have clarified the way in which we are to "review" this book, separate from the various ways in which it has been interpreted. I think we've gone kind of off the track of what you were asking for, so I thought I'd bring it back.

Now you go and claim me as being disingenious! J'accuse!

Dylan wrote:Brad, I ask you: what is pejorative about the word "fiction" in a discussion about the literary merits of the bible? I was asking to have clarified the way in which we are to "review" this book, separate from the various ways in which it has been interpreted. I think we've gone kind of off the track of what you were asking for, so I thought I'd bring it back.

Now you go and claim me as being disingenious! J'accuse!

Dylan!

Fiction is generally used in a pejorative manner! The Bible? What a bunch of fiction!

I clarified our use of the word "fiction" for the readers! So that we are on the same page! I do not accuse you, Good Dylan!

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:I'm going to go home now. I'm very sorry that I posted this topic.

that was a bunch of fiction!

GuyMercier wrote:

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:I'm going to go home now. I'm very sorry that I posted this topic.

that was a bunch of fiction!

Bingo.

rocco wrote:A. The Const. is not the word of God, so its got that goin' for it, and,

The bible isn't either. The only religion that claims that their text is the word of god is Islam, which was channeled through the "epileptic prohecies" of Muhammad. The bible is definately the word of man and is the result of oral and written tradition about god.

rocco wrote:B. Written in it is the ability for the people/govt. to make changes. We call those amendments and guess what, its been amended many times.

There was actually a bible council that decided which books would be included and which were not. People voted on what went into the bible. Granted, this is not exactly the same as an ability to amend the text by voting on it, but it is related to how people decided their religious texts would represent them. Once again, I'd like to point out that the time frame that this book represents does not reflect modern society.

rocco wrote:Both were written by humans but have completely different purposes. I'm just saying the constitution is an orange and the bible is a rotten apple.

Saying the bible was developed to opiate the masses (paraphrased from your "L.Ron" reply to Bradley) is fairly shortsighted. I think that both the bible and the constitution boil down to how people should govern their lives. Amounts of livestock, how property should be handled, etc are all included in the bible amongst the awesome tales of smoting. I think my analogy is a little more realistic than comparing it to Mein Kampf, and I'll stand by it.


Faiz

kerble wrote:

rocco wrote: I think my analogy is a little more realistic than comparing it to Mein Kampf, and I'll stand by it.

I don’t know about the literary or thematic resonances of the Bible and Mein Kampf. That seems pretty far fetched. But the link between Jesus H Christ and Hitler is well nigh undeniable.

Despite what these folksthink.